This statement was written by Irmeli Krans, a Swedish police officer, on 20 August 2010 and amended on 26 August 2010. It purports to be the record of an interview with Sofia Wilen, but Sofia Wilen refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day.
It is nevertheless this unsigned statement which the British High Court stated contains an allegation which would, if true, amount to rape. Some may recall that fact being triumphantly and aggressively read out to me on Newsnight by Gavin Esler, with no mention that the statement referred to had never been signed by the “complainant”.
The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.
Contrary to police protocol in virtually every developed country, including Sweden, the interrogation although in a police station had neither been audio recorded nor video recorded. Irmeli Krans has claimed she could not find a working dictaphone – in a major Stockholm police station that does of course have video-taping facilities.
Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin had known each other for at least two years before they were present together at the police interview of Sofia Wilen. They had been on the same ballot paper as candidates for the same political party in a council election. They were facebook friends and had exchanged messages on a relevant subject, the abuse of power by white men:
Irmeli Krans to Anna Ardin April 2009:
Hello! Thanks for the compliment. And like you say, white men must always defend the right to use abusive words. Then they of course deny that these very words are part of a system that keeps their group at the top of the social ladder.
I will analyse Anna Ardin’s behaviour in detail in a further post in a few days. According to Ardim, Sofia Wilen contacted her concerned that unprotected sex with Assange may have given her a sexually transmitted disease. Rather than take her to a medical facility, Ardin took Wilen to a police station, under the pretext that the police might be able to compel Assange to take an STD test – which even in Sweden must be an extraordinary proposition.
Ardin did not take Wilen to the nearest police station. She took her right across Stockholm to the police station where Ardin’s friend, lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans, was serving. They arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty. Then Ardin was present throughtout Krans’ interview of Wilen – which appears to have very much informed Ardin’s presentation of her own subsequent allegation against Assange. Ardin’s “assault” by Assange took place several days before the Wilen “assault”, but was not reported by Ardin until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.
And always remember, Wilen refused to sign the resulting statement, given here, as a fair account of what occurred.
Statement of Irmeli Krans
Following is Krans’ interrogation of Sofia Wilén 20 August 2010, subsequently modified by Krans 26 August 2010.
Background
Sofia says she saw an interview a few weeks ago on TV with Julian Assange who is known to be behind the WikiLeaks publication of US military documents from Afghanistan. Sofia thought he was interesting, courageous, and admirable. For the next two weeks she watched the news carefully, she read a lot of articles, and saw interviews. One evening when she sat at home and Googled the name Julian Assange she discovered he was invited to Sweden to hold a lecture arranged by the social democrat brotherhood movement. She posted a message to the brotherhood press secretary Anna Ardin whose contact details she found on their website and asked if he would be coming to Sweden and if she in such case could attend his lecture. She offered to help out with practical details in return. Anna Ardin replied that she’d forward her message to those in charge.
But Sofia got no further reply and suddenly one day she saw an ad with the time and place for the lecture. The lecture was to be held in ‘LO-borgen’ at Norra Bantorget Saturday 14 August. She rang those in charge on Friday and asked if it was OK to attend. She was told she was one of the first to apply and it’d be OK. She took the day off from work and went to LO-borgen on Saturday. She saw a woman who she presumed was Anna Ardin standing outside LO-borgen and went up to her and introduced herself. Anna told Sofia that she was on the list so she was welcome to attend. At the same time the lecturer himself, Julian Assange, approached with a man in his 30s. She got the impression the man was Julian’s press secretary or something similar. Julian looked at Sofia as if he was amused. She got the feeling he thought she didn’t belong there in her shocking pink cashmere jumper amongst all the other gray journalists.
The Lecture
She sat at the far right front when she entered the venue, the lecturer would stand all the way to the left. The room seemed full of journalists. A half hour before the lecture was to begin, Anna approached Sofia and asked if she could help buy a cable for Julian’s computer. They needed a cable and Sofia had offered to help out. Sofia went up to Julian to ask what type of cable he needed. He explained what he needed and then wrote it down on a small piece of paper. She took the paper and placed it immediately in her pocket. Julian looked contemptibly at her and said ‘you didn’t even look at the note’. She told him she didn’t need to as he’d already explained what type of cable he needed.
She took a cab to the ‘Webhallen’ boutique on Sveavägen but they were closed. The time was 10:30 and the store would open first at 11:00. But that’s also when the lecture was scheduled to begin, so Sofia started feeling stressed. The cabbie drove her instead to the Haymarket where she purchaed two types of cable for safety’s sake. She got back in time, she had the right type of cable, but she wasn’t thanked for her help by Julian. The lecture went well.
The Lunch
There were many journalists who wanted to interview Julian after the lecture. Sofia stayed around because she too wanted to speak with him. She asked Anna if this was possible and Anna said Julian would stand outside the entrance to LO-borgen to be accessible to the public in case anyone wanted to ask him questions. Sofia went out and sat in the shade and waited for the interviews to be over. There were more interviews outside. Sofia approached LO-borgen again and overheard that the brotherhood people were going to treat Julian to lunch. Sofia asked if she could come along too, after all she’d helped them with the cable. She was invited and went together with Anna, Julian and his entourage, and two members of the brotherhood to a restaurant on Drottninggatan across from the Central Bathhouse. She ended up next to Julian and started talking with him. He looked at her now and again during the lunch. On one occasion when he put cheese on his knäckebröd she asked him if it tasted good and then he reached over with his sandwich and fed her with it. Later during lunch he said he needed a charger for his laptop. She said she could get one for him, after all she’d got the cable for him earlier. He put his arm around her and said ‘yes you gave me the cable’. Sofia thought this was flattering for it was obvious he was now flirting with her.
The others left after lunch, leaving only Sofia, Julian, and Julian’s companion. They went off together to buy an electric cable for Julian’s computer. ‘Kjell & Co’ didn’t have the product, so they went on to Webhallen but it was closed again. They walked back on Sveavägen towards the Haymarket and talked about what they’d do next. Julian’s companion asked him if he wanted to come along and help move furniture for his parents and Sofia offered Julian a visit at the natural history museum where she worked. It was decided Julian would accompany Sofia to the museum and his companion left them. Julian and Sofia went into the Haymarket subway station where she purchased a blue access card good for the day as he didn’t have the monthly commuter card and no money either as he said. They took the train towards Mörby Centrum and stepped off at the university stop. A man in the subway recognised Julian and told him how much he admired him.
The Natural History Museum
On the way from the university subway station Julian stopped to pet a few dogs, which Sofia thought was charming. In the museum they went to the staff room where Julian sat down and starting surfing the net, he was looking for tweets about himself. They sat there waiting for a film that was to be shown at Cosmonova at 18:00.
They were let into the cinema by Sofia’s colleague and Julian held Sofia’s hand. In the darkness of the cinema he started kissing her. A few latecomers arrived and sat behind them and so they moved to a row at the back. Julian continued kissing her, touched her breasts under her jumper, undid her bra, unbuttoned her pants, caressed her buttocks, and sucked her nipples. He muttered about the armrest being in the way. She was sitting in his lap when the lights went on and he tried to put her bra back on. She thought it embarrassing to sit there in view of her colleagues who she knew could have seen it all.
They went out through the inner courtyard and she went to the toilet. When she came out, he was lying on his back on a picnic table resting, he said he was very tired. He was supposed to be at a crayfish party at 20:00 and wanted to sleep 20 minutes before leaving. They lay down together in the grass next to each other and he had his arm around her. He fell asleep and she woke him twenty minutes later. Then they promenaded over lawns, passed cows and Canadian geese, he held her hand, it was wonderful in all possible ways and he told her ‘you’re very attractive to me’. He’d also told her in the cinema she had pretty breasts. She asked him if they’d meet again. He said of course they would, they’d meet after the crayfish party.
She accompanied him to the Zinkensdamm subway station where he caught a cab back to Anna Ardin’s where the party was to take place. He gave her a hug and said he didn’t want to part from her and encouraged her to charge her cellphone. She went home to Enköping, arriving at home at 23:00. She had a voice message waiting from Julian from 22:55 when she’d recharged her phone, telling her to ring him when her phone was working again. She rang back at 23:15, realising he was still at the party. She’d developed a stomach cramp from a sandwich she’d eaten on the way home and told him she wanted to go to bed. He insinuated it wasn’t about stomach cramps as much as a feeling of guilt.
On Monday
She rang Julian twice on Sunday but his phone was turned off. She told her colleagues at work on Monday what had happened at the weekend. They told her Julian felt dumped and therefore hadn’t rung back so that the ball was in her court. She rang him and he answered. She asked if they should do something together. He said he’d be at a meeting which could take a long time up until 20:30 but he could ring her back later. He also asked about her stomach cramps. He insinuated she’d lied about her cramps and he used the third person to tell her. She promised to wait for him so after she finished work at 19:00 she went to Kungshallarna and had sushi. Afterwards she strolled about town and ended up in the old town where she rang him back at 21:00 when he still hadn’t got back to her, asking what was going on. He said he was in a meeting in Hornsgatan and he wanted her to come there. She got the address and went there. She couldn’t find the address when she arrived, rang Julian, and spoke with a man who spoke Swedish who explained she was to get in through a side entrance. She stood there and waited for him when he came out together with a another man, they said goodbye to one another and looked very happy.
Julian and Sofia walked up Hornsgatan towards Slussen and from there to the old town. They sat by the water at Munkbroleden and he commented on girls who sat there as ‘lonely and abandoned’ and who ‘probably need saving’. They lay down and starting making out, heavily. Amongst other things he put his hands under her jumper and when they left the area she noticed people were looking at them. They decided to go home to her place. They went into the subway where his card was now invalid and she got him through by swiping her own card twice. They took the train to Enköping from the central station, she paid for the tickets, SEK 107 (~$10) each. He claimed he didn’t want to use his credit card, he didn’t want to be traced. They sat in the direction the train would move all the way back in the car. Julian connected his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter on the computer and on the phone. He devoted more attention to the computer than he did to her. She’d suggested they take in at a hotel but he said he wanted to see ‘girls in their natural habitat’.
To Enköping
It was dark when they got off the train and they passed old industry buildings where he went off to pee. She also took a pee. When they arrived at her flat she went in before him into the bedroom to clean up a bit before he saw it. They took off their shoes and the relationship between them didn’t feel warm anymore. The passion and excitement had disappeared. They made out in the bedroom but she wanted to brush her teeth. It was midnight, pitch black outside, and they brushed their teeth together – it felt banal and boring.
When they want back in the bedroom Julian stood in front of Sofia and grabbed her hips and pushed her demonstratively down on the bed, as if he were a real man. He took off his clothes and they had foreplay on the bed. They were naked and he rubbed his penis against her nether regions without penetrating her but he got closer and closer to her slit. She squeezed her legs together because she didn’t want sex with him without protection. They carried on for hours and Julian couldn’t get a full erection. Julian had no interest in using a condom.
Suddenly Julian said he was going to go to sleep. She felt rejected and shocked. It came so suddenly, they’d had a really long foreplay and then nothing. She asked what was wrong, she didn’t understand. He pulled the blanket over himself, turned away from her, and fell asleep. She went out and got her fleece blanket because she was cold. She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends. He lay beside her snoring. She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex. She’d earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex. He no longer had an erection problem. At one point when he mounted her from behind, she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what she had to smile about. She didn’t like the tone in his voice.
They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she’s not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice. She didn’t like being ordered in her own home but thought ‘whatever’ and got the water and juice anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn’t want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn’t know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said ‘be good’. He replied ‘don’t worry, I’m always bad’. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She’d already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone.
The Assault
They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he’d put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked ‘are you wearing anything’ and he answered ‘you’. She told him ‘you better not have HIV’ and he replied ‘of course not’. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn’t be bothered telling him again. She’d been nagging about condoms all night long. She’s never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn’t say when he’d done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.
She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he’d have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he’d told her he’d slept in Anna Ardin’s bed after the crayfish party. She asked if he’d had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, she was lesbian. But now she knows he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him how many times he’d had sex but he said he hadn’t counted. He also said he’d had a HIV test three months earlier and he’d had sex with a girl afterwards and that girl had also taken a HIV test and wasn’t infected. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone. She thinks she got the idea of taking the drama out of what had happened, he in turn didn’t seem to care. When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she’d have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they’d name the baby Afghanistan. He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that actually were sugar pills.
His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet on Tuesday at noon. She explained to him that he’d not make the meeting on time and he pushed his entire schedule forward an hour. Then they rode her bicycle to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they parted he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he’d ring her and he said he would.
Afterwards
She rode her bicycle home, showered, and washed her bed sheets. Because she hadn’t made it to work she called in sick and stayed home the whole day. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting. She went to the chemist’s and bought a ‘morning after’ pill.
When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime. She went into Danderyd hospital and went from there to the Söder hospital. There she was examined and they even took samples with a so-called ‘rape kit’.
Forensic Certificate
Sofia gives her permission for obtaining a forensic certificate.
Claimant Counsel
Sofia desires a claimant counsel she will identify later.
Sundry
Julian says his name is Julian Paul Assange and was born 31 December 1971.
Interrogator’s Comments
Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn’t have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn’t have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity
to do this later.
@Jemand – I think it was worth trying a deal between WL and various media outlets – it got coverage for material that needed to get out there. As I’ve previously said, it was a mix of suspicion and cock-up that soured various working relationships and ultimately ended in the accidental release of all the cables.
If more media opportunities come along, WL should not necessarily avoid them, but we’re seen how profit-oriented such corporations are – and, I suppose, we should not be surprised by it either. Good journalists still exist, but there’s no such thing as good news organisations any more – if there ever was. So WL should be careful, and should avoid putting its eggs into one risky basket.
I think WL should operate on a philanthropy basis, and for such an organisation it should not be too hard to raise the necessary funding. I would expect there would be several +governments+ willing to put money into the hat – several Latin American countries come to mind! Here too, of course, they should avoid too great a dependency on one sponsor – it is better to have many sources of support, so that there is no temptation to avoid particular embarrassing leaks.
Aside: WL does transparency reports on their site here: http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate
Oh yes, on the structure of WL, I should think there would be more detail in the Leigh book. Personally I won’t touch it with a bargepole though; whilst I think Assange makes enemies too easily, I think Leigh came off as very slippery in that episode.
I am not sure if there are other books on WL, but it would be worth a check.
AAMVN wrote: “For me the key factor is that Assange feared some kind of rendition to the US or at least a lengthy stay in a Swedish jail at a time when he really needed to be active. Maybe Assange is wrong and paranoid and he’d be perfectly safe in Sweden – but who can guarantee it?”
I certainly agree about fearing extradition. US prisons are despicable places.
Several on this thread have asked why Assange was not directly extradited from the UK if that was our government’s intention. I’ve tried to answer this in a blogpost.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/why-uk-has-not-extradited-julian.html
John Goss,
You may have tried to answer, but it seems you have failed;
1) You write – “It is much easier to ship him to Sweden on trumped-up charges, where he would be picked up by CIA agents, whisked off to Sweden, and put in prison for a very long time.” From Sweden to Sweden? I presume you mean the US?
2) The comparison with the Horrific treatment of Vanunu is slightly false. JA is not an American Citizen, nor has he signed any secrecy disclosure.
3) You correctly highlight the absurdity of the UK-US extradition treaty, then claim to use this as evidence as why JA would not be extradited?
4) Again comparing extradition with rendition is at best unhelpful in this case
5) Ah, I should have know those pesky Rothschilds, Rockerfellers and the NWO were involved. By any chance do you also suspect alien lizard involvement?
6)Do you consider all prisons to be despicable, or only US prisons?
AAMVN,
Excellent measured post, you are undoubtedly right there has been confusion and inaccuracies propagated by both the Swedes and JA and his supporters.
I fear the extradition issue is the main point where those with sensible positions on both sides of the debate will never be able to reconcile. Myself and Goran(I think) believe that JA will not be under any real threat of extradition, whilst yourself, Jon and others believe this a very real and present danger.
@AAMVN
Firstly I very much respect you for your recent posts. RESPECT.
I have in earlier posts not mentioned Irmeli Krans. Mostly because her role is completely misunderstood. Especially among Assange supporters and most of Assange lawyers, but not all. She is not important in the case.
When I read Sofia’s interview nothing in it comes across to me as disturbing facts of horrible sex crimes committed by the menace Julian Assange. The only section that could be regarded criminal is the sentence where Sofia says she woke up finding Julian entering her. You have to remember that Eva Finné, chief prosecutor City Åklagarkammare, did not see anything criminal in this interview.
My analysis is that there is nothing written into the statement by “a diabolical lesbian state feminist” as some tend to suggest. There isn’t any use of emotionally connected words to put Julian Assange in a bad light. All in all it is a factual statement. And it is very kind to Julian Assange.
I knew from very early on that Irmeli Krans was a candidate for a seat in the Stockholms Kommunfullmäktige, Stockholm assembly, in the 2010 election. So was Anna Ardin. Both connected to the same party. I knew Irmeli Krans was vocal in LGBTQ issues. I don’t know Irmeli Krans’ sexual preferences but I know it is not important. The people that have claimed that she is a lesbian are simply bigots. I do not regard Irmeli Krans as important in the case. That is the reason I haven’t spent time writing about her.
Irmeli Krans came into focus in March 2011 when it was revealed that she had tweeted comments that were negative to Julian Assange. She had also written a number of silly comments on Facebook. When this was revealed all Assange supporters cried foul and a lot of other things too and asked that her interview with Sofia Wilén should be disallowed and a new interview should be conducted. One of Julian Assange’s present lawyers, Per E. Samuelsson, made a lot of noise about it too. He reported Irmeli Krans to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, JO, and asked for a restart of the investigation. Something that I don’t think was very intelligent.
If Irmeli Krans’ interview should be disallowed Sofia have to be re-interviewed. I cannot see how a re-interview would be more favourable to Julian Assange than the present one is. I do think that a new interview with Sofia would be worse for Julian Assange. I think Björn Hurtig made the right thing when he did not ask for Irmeli Krans’ interview to be disallowed. Björn Hurtig was very much criticized by back seat lawyers. I do think that Per E. Samuelsson’s actions were stupid. It was his dislike for Irmeli Krans that made him call for a restart. It wasn’t because Irmeli Krans had really had a negative impact on the interview. I think Julian Assange made another mistake firing Björn Hurtig.
I hope that this information makes you understand Irmeli Krans’ role in the investigation and why I am critical to Mr Murray’s reporting on the case. Irmeli Krans’ tweets and comments on Facebook is just proof that she will not get a Nobel prize this year.
Irmeli Krans seems to have made a bit of a hash of the interviews with SW (and AA if we accept she was present for some or all of it – disputed I know).
She then seems to have gone off on a silly tweeting spree and said a lot of stuff she really didn’t ought to have said.
I don’t mind knowing her sexuality and politics (which may or may not be relevent) but I suppose it may prejudice some readers against her. Not the readers who are worth addressing though.
But she was off the case and out of the picture very early on. So her importance is indeed minimal.
People still in the dark over the facts of the case are encouraged to find and download Judge Riddle’s opinion:-
49483435-Julian-Assange-can-be-extradited-to-Sweden-UK-Court-opinion.pdf
and the agreed facts of the case:-
agreed-facts-Assange-case.pdf
Not links but copied into google works fine.
I wish the numerous journalists (on both sides and none) had made a more careful study of these documents and referenced them – it might have saved us all a lot of heated argument at cross purposes.
If you want to read or download the documents that AAMVN mentions they are found here too.
Judge Riddle’s decision Magistrates’ Court 24 February
http://samtycke.nu/doc/assange-judgment_Belmarsh.pdf
Agreed facts and issues from the Supreme Court
http://samtycke.nu/doc/agreed-facts-Assange-case.pdf
It is interesting to note that some of the agreed facts and issues are wrong. Not major errors but dates wrong and stuff.
CE, well at least you read it, even though, as might be expected you chose to dismiss it. In case others wonder what you are talking about with the first point I did make a mistake writing Sweden instead of US but it was corrected before you even finished your comment. Erring, according to Pope is part of being human.
On your second point the two cases are very similar. Vanunu was picked up by MOSSAD agents. Detainees in Guantanamo were picked up by US agents. It is so much easier to extradite from abroad. What did you not understand about it?
Your third is plain false. I used it to show the inequality of UK/US extradition agreements.
Your fourth point: why is the comparison unhelpful?
Fifth: I don’t look for lizards, just trolls and shills. You will note the video link has a Jewish man, Aaron Russo, making the points against the Rockefellers. Where are the sources for your points.
Your sixth point is off topic.
Mr Murray claims in his article:
“Contrary to police protocol in virtually every developed country, including Sweden, the interrogation although in a police station had neither been audio recorded nor video recorded. Irmeli Krans has claimed she could not find a working dictaphone – in a major Stockholm police station that does of course have video-taping facilities.”
Mr Murray is wrong again when he claims Klara Närpolisstation “of course have video-taping facilities.”
I’ve checked with the head of Klara Närpolisstation. They do not have video-taping facilities. I think Mr Murray was correct in assuming a major police station in Stockholm would have video-taping facilities. I also assumed that Klara Närpolisstation video-taping facilities. But I checked it. I will not call Mr Murray a liar on this one. Just mis-informed. He could have made one phone-call just to check. He chose not to.
If you are interested in finding out why the interview was not taped, here is the full story.
Twenty years ago, with analogue tape recorders, it was more common that police interviews were audio taped and documented in dialog form than today. The normal chain of events was a police officer conducted the interview, recorded it, and handed the recording to a civilian employee that converted it into text.
In a police-reform around 1995-7 most of the civilians employed within the police departments were fired. One consequence of the reform was that most police officers now have to write the entire interviews by themselves.
Sofia’s interview started on 16:21 and lasted until 18:40. It is 2 hours and 19 minutes. It is in summary form 5 pages long. Johann Wahlström’s interview is taped. It is 1 hour and 28 minutes. In dialog form it is 23 pages. If Sofia’s interview was recorded and converted to text it would likely be 36 pages long.
Irmeli Krans knew that she would be responsible for converting the interview to text. She knew from experience that to record an interview meant that she had to spend much more time typing it out in dialog form than if she just did it as a summary. I don’t think she spent much time looking for a tape recorder. She just interviewed Sofia and documented it as a summary, 5 pages. It saved her some 30 pages to write.
Irmeli Krans is criticized for many things, like posting stupid tweets etc. That is beside the point. I feel like I am the only person that is criticizing her for her real failure, not recording the interview. I don’t think that Irmeli Krans is the only person that should be criticized for it. It is a system error. The head of Swedish Police knows about this and knows that crime investigations are not done properly but does nothing to change it.
There is a systematic error in how the Swedish police investigates rape and other serious crimes. If you don’t record the initial interview much of the evidence is out the window. No matter what you do at a later stage information is lost. I hope you understand it has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the officer in charge. And it is not only Julian Assange that is the victim of this.
Mr Rudling:
For someone enjoys criticising the intelligence of others, would you say it has been “intelligent” of you to have spent the better part of a week calling Craig Murray a liar when you have offered no proof and continue to convince no one on this point?
Was it “intelligent” of you to wing it with your ridiculous definition of “a fabrication”?
Johan above states that SW’s statement went unsigned for nearly 3 months. Is that correct? If so, that seems a bit long for a bureaucratic delay and not entirely inconsistent with a refusal to sign, would you not agree?
You say that the Swedish govt. cannot issue a “guarantee” of no extradition. You also say that JA cannot be extradited under pure espionage charges. I accept that. But let’s look at things from a different angle. If it is crystal clear to you that it is an impossibility, then it sure as hell must also be crystal clear to high-powered US government lawyers that they would be wasting their time seeking an extradition. In this case, wouldn’t the “intelligent” thing to do be for the Swedish govt. to extract a public pledge from the United States that it will not seek the extradition of Julian Assange, full stop? You don’t have to be a hotshot lawyer to understand that you cannot extradite a man who is not sought for extradition. Wouldn’t this be the most efficient may to end this critical uncertainty over extradition? To your knowledge, has the Swedish govt. attempted this?
may = way
If I would have realized the fanatical defence of Mr Murray I wouldn’t have called him a liar. I incorrectly assumed that anybody that without any evidence puts this in a blog post “lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans” is not only homophobic but involved in posting lies. The language used is not what I call proper. Maybe this kind of diplomatic language was the reason he had to quit.
I read a lot of comments about me and my tone. I haven’t seen you comment once on the fact that the honorable gentleman Mr Murray is involved in something that might be his favorite sport, calling people lesbians without foundation. I am not suggesting that you are biased. Just stating the obvious.
Johan above states that SW’s statement went unsigned for nearly 3 months.
I haven’t seen anything that supports Johan’s claims.
If it is crystal clear to you that it is an impossibility, then it sure as hell must also be crystal clear to high-powered US government lawyers that they would be wasting their time seeking an extradition.
You are absolutely right. US diplomats are no idiots. They don’t try to get extraditions in cases they know they won’t succeed. If you want me to I can show two cases recently where persons that are in Sweden wanted for fraud and terrorism are not asked to be extradited because the diplomats know that it won’t be granted. That goes for diplomats. What US lawyers do I don’t know. And just to remind you, high-powered US government lawyers are not seeking Julian’s extradition. It is Julian that thinks so. There is nothing that supports his claims.
In this case, wouldn’t the “intelligent” thing to do be for the Swedish govt. to extract a public pledge from the United States that it will not seek the extradition of Julian Assange, full stop?
Why would the Swedish government do this? If I was the Prime Minister I would never do a stupid thing like that. I would not interfere in US internal politics. The US can ask for Julian Assange’s extradition as much as they like. If I would be the PM I would only spend time to figure out how Sweden should handle the situation. If Julian would be extradited from Australia at some time Sweden would not interfere.
“You don’t have to be a hotshot lawyer to understand that you cannot extradite a man who is not sought for extradition.”
I think you are absolutely correct. Please tell Mr Assange.
“Wouldn’t this be the most efficient may to end this critical uncertainty over extradition?”
No. Sweden is not uncertain about extradition. It is Mr Assange’s imagined problem.
I think you are too involved on the Assange side of things to see things clear. Julian has made a mess of the case. There is nothing to save him from his imagined fears except some new imagination.
Just an example. If I would ask for a guarantee prior to going to the UK that if I happened top commit murder I wouldn’t be executed. People would tell me that murderers aren’t executed in the UK anymore. But I want a guarantee anyway. I would be regarded a nutter. I am sorry to say that Julian Assange and his guarantees are very similar to parts in the dialog in Life of Brian. “We want men to have the right to be pregnant.” I know I make you go ballistic when I say that Julian Assange is a nutter. Just look at his list of claims on the Australian government. Asking the Australian government to get involved in a Swedish legal case. And when Australia stated it wouldn’t he felt “abandoned”. I am sorry, Mr Assange has lost it.
http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/dem-aus.pdf
Just from Wikipedia
Fabrication
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Examples of fabrication: A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn’t actually know the directions. Often propaganda is fabrication.
Johan,
At that time, a second interview with Wilén had already been conducted, but a protocol was not included in the dossier. Presumably because it would weaken the case (in the second interview, Wilén claims to have been “half asleep” and not fully asleep).”
You are mixed up. What is claimed by Mr Hurtig is that the text messages might maybe say that she was “half asleep”. This is a matter for the courts in Sweden. To my knowledge Mr Hurtig has not seen the second interview. It is not released nor leaked.
“All the evidence suggests that Wilén did in fact REFUSE to sign the original statement, or else a signed copy would presumably have been included in the dossier three months later.”
You make a lot of assumptions here. I would say there is no evidence what so ever to suggest that she refused to sigh her statement.
Goran,
It actually makes no difference at all whether Irmeli Krans is a lesbian or not. There is however a great deal of material on the net that indicates that she is, for example:
http://www.daddys-sverige.com/3/post/2011/3/assange-police-interrogator-irmeli-krans-was-personal-friend-with-anna-ardin.html
While nowhere, except you here, have I seen it contradicted.
Dear Craig,
Sorry to state the obvious. There is nothing in the link you posted that suggests she is a lesbian. She is involved in gay and lesbian rights. There is in fact extremely little on the net that suggests she is. I think you are wrong on this one too. I find it amusing that you link to daddys blog.
Please tell me where you got the information that Sofia refused to sign her statement?
Please show where the prosecutor has stated that interview of Sofia was witnessed by Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.
Please show me what support you have for stating Anna Ardin took Sofia across town and that Klara Närpolisstation is not the best and obvious choice.
I don’t think that you help Julian Assange one millimeter by stating things that aren’t true. I think it hurts him.
Göran,
You are mistaken. Please read the High Court judgment, paragraph 125:
“Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as ‘half asleep’ and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep.” (my emphasis)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/72193113/Assange-High-Court-Judgment-via-Public-Intelligence
Oh, and BTW Göran, can we agree that SW:s original statement was still not signed almost three months after the interview?
Dear Craig,
“The swedish police today confirms this, but says that Krans did not interrogate Anna Ardin. Only her friend Sofia Wilén. What they don’t say however is that Anna Ardin was present in the room during the whole interrogation. This according to the israeli journalist and peoples rights activist Israel Shamir. If this is correct, it is a serious violation of juistice. Probably even grounds for discharge.
This above is from the blog you linked to.
Are you telling me that “peoples rights activist Israel Shamir” is you source? You must be joking?
If so I must tip my hat to you that you were smart enough to take out his allegation that Anna Ardin is a CIA agent.
If “It actually makes no difference at all whether Irmeli Krans is a lesbian or not” why do you put in on your blog post?
Dear Johan,
I don’t think I am wrong. I will explain it to you. Paragraph 125 below:
“Nor do the inconsistencies in her account and text messages relied upon by Mr Assange assist. In one sent by her she described herself as ‘half asleep’ and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep. These are matters of evidence which would be relevant at trial. But it is not for this court to asses whether the allegations may fail. It was not therefore necessary to se the details of these out. There is, therefore, nothing in the particulars which is neither fair nor accurate.”
Firstly it is talk about text messages. “In one sent by her she described herself as ‘half asleep’” as I said. This is hearsay evidence by Mr Hurtig.
Now to the line that you noted “and she accepted in a further interview that she was not fast asleep”. You assume incorrectly that a further interview is a second interview with Sofia. That is not the interview the court is referring to. The court refers to the interview by Katarina Svensson. She claims Sofia was half-asleep.
How can I be so sure of this? The second police interview with Sofia is not known to the High Court. So it is not possibly for the court to refer to it. I agree that it is not written that clearly. Please check it further so you can verify that I am right or show me something that makes me understand that I am wrong.
I agree with you that the Sofia’s interview does not have the words, Read to Sofia and approved or some other words even 3 months after. I think that is as it should be.
When Irmeli Krans rewrites the interview on 26 Aug you can see she gets the time wrong compared to the original document. When Irmeli is finished she CLOSES the document so nobody can change it. That means, even if Sofia did approve the interview on 2 September someone has to go in and rewrite the whole interview again. That is not proper. There is most likely a separate paper somewhere saying that Sofia approved of the interview. Do you agree?
I believe the reason Irmeli Krans sexuality has been focused on is that it acts as a dog whistle for all supporters of JA.
Lesbian Feminist Campaigner = AA’s lover\ extreme man hater = witch-hunt against Our Hero.
I think you are correct Goran, some people have invested so much personally in the Assange Case that it has induced a major case of myopia and they can’t see the woods for the trees.
CE
I don’t think I have ever seen anyone suggest Krans and Ardin were lovers. There is no evidence for that at all. But that Krans is a campaigning lesbian appears to be accepted by the entire world except Goran, whose motivation I struggle to understand.
Goran
You keep linking to sources nobody here has quoted and then argue against them. You appear to have no purpose except to cause confusion. If you have an alternative timeline for Wilen, Ardin and Kraus in terms of where, who was present and how Wilen’s statement was taken, kindly set it out. When do you say Wilen signed it? The statement itself says she didn’t sign it.
You also continually called me a liar for saying Krans is a lesbian, but later you say you do not know if she is a lesbian or not. Wll, she is. You state that you cannot see any particular use of emotive or biased language against Assange in the statement Kraus wrote. I would say that shows you are completely hopeless at textual analysis. Indeed you make numerous statements with an air of great authority, which all evaporate upon inspection.
@CE, hmmm: I don’t believe I have seen the suggestion that Krans and Ardin were ever an item either. Straw man?
More to the point, there is a strong trend of anti-homophobia on this board, and we’ll cheerfully delete any overt bigotry of that kind. People here who support JA are simply not of the views that you cite.
I thought the “our hero” nonsense was dealt with on another thread? JA supporters come in all shapes and sizes – some of whom are worshipful, and others selectively supportive. I’m perfectly happy to criticise aspects of his character – especially the poorly judged conversation with the editor of Private Eye – but this case is not about whether we find Assange to be likeable. Your implication that any supporter of JA must by definition be starry-eyed is plain wrong.
I do wonder also that your support for Goran – given his abusive rhetoric, highly inappropriate illustrative analogies, evident high regard for his own infallible correctness, and peculiar fascination for “crisis management” – is somewhat misplaced.
Jon\Craig
Hi, and thanks to both of you for taking the time to reply.
On this thread and others posters have alluded to the fact that AA\IK may have been lovers. Definitely at least one instance on the first page of this thread.(Villager possibly?)
I am grateful to Goran for sharing his knowledge and correcting several inaccuracies that some posters seem to believe are indisputable facts(some people on here consider the highly inaccurate 4Corners as some form of Rosetta Stone through which to decipher the JA Case). I have also criticised him for his somewhat confrontational tone and inappropriate analogy when necessary.
I don’t believe that every supporter of JA is starry-eyed, but there seem to be many posters on here who are. Just look at the reaction of some when any criticism against JA is levelled (normally along the lines of F off you Troll\Sock puppet\ect, ect). I can think of no other reason why so many people(not you) seem to believe the man is an infallible hero who has done no wrong over the last 2 years. This is plainly not what the evidence suggest.
Yes, he has undoubtedly performed a great public service with wikileaks, but as I said on my first day here, that should not give anyone the right to denigrate his alleged victims or diminish their complaints, and JA should follow the views of 6 courts and return to Sweden ASAP so these matters can be resolved.
GR: Why would the Swedish government do this? If I was the Prime Minister I would never do a stupid thing like that. I would not interfere in US internal politics.
What Mr. Rudling?!? No legal razzle-dazzle this time? When out of ammunition, just shout “stupid idea”, right? It obviously never occurred to you that Sweden would not be “interfering” but asking a favour from its ally the United States, ie. can you please confirm that you have no intention to seek JA’s extradition? Surely this would help to convince the Ecuadorian govt. that JA’s life was not in danger. Like I said, where is the “evidence” that the Swedish govt. is seriously trying to end this stand-off?
And your definition of “fabrication” is unworkable since it embraces millions upon millions of people who repeat every day what they see on TV or read in the papers, books, or on the internet without having witnessed described events taking place. CE is right (yes, you read that correctly CE). The test is whether someone is acting in good faith. You have not proved that any of us have acted in bad faith.
Viva,
Wow twice in 2 days, I must be on a roll! 😉
Jon/Craig,
Just to refute the straw man accusations:
Villager on P1 – Now, on the issue of Krans’s sexuality, let me try to hit this one on the head.
I don’t just want to know if Krans is a lesbian. I also want to know if she’s been in bed with Ardin at any time. (In addition to being on the same ballot and what-not.) EVERYTHING needs to be investigated.
——————————————————————————–
I agree with Craig’s earlier statement that Krans sexuality is irrelevant, that’s why I’m struggling to understand the need to refer to her as the lesbian IK. Would we do the same with a heterosexual cop making errors?
@CE:
Wow twice in 2 days, I must be on a roll!
Not quite as good as a broken watch though…….
Good night.
Goran Rudling said above I think Julian Assange made another mistake firing Björn Hurtig.
I’m curious about why Bjorn Hurtig was fired if anyone has details – and why GR thinks it was a mistake.
@Jon – re CE, Goran
“I do wonder also that your support for Goran – given his abusive rhetoric, highly inappropriate illustrative analogies, evident high regard for his own infallible correctness, and peculiar fascination for “crisis management” – is somewhat misplaced.”
Some comments are like classic guitar riffs. The above sounds like it came out of a Led Zeppelin song.. but which one?